Most EA vendors hide their failed versions. They quietly delete the Myfxbook, push a "v2" with no explanation, and pretend the old one never existed. I'm going to do the opposite. This is the story of DoIt MultiStrategy Pro v1 — what worked, what stopped working, and exactly what changed in v2.
The version most EA marketing pages don't want you to see
Open any EA vendor's site right now. Click the product page. Scroll to performance.
You'll see a Myfxbook link. You'll see a backtest curve. You'll see "version 2" or "v3" written somewhere small.
What you won't see: what happened to v1.
Did it work? Did it stop working? Was the old Myfxbook deleted? Was it quietly switched to a new account that started from zero so the curve looks clean? Did real buyers of v1 get an update path, or did they get abandoned?
Almost no vendor in this industry will answer those questions. The reason is simple: most v1s blew up. The track record was bad. The new version was an attempt to start over without taking responsibility for the old one. So they hide it.
I'm not going to do that with MultiStrategy Pro. The v1 Myfxbook is still public. The v2 is also public. You can compare both, and you should.
MultiStrategy Pro v1: what it was
The original MultiStrategy Pro was 5 modules running on a portfolio approach. The thesis was correct: a single EA on a single instrument is a fragile bet, no matter how good the system is. Diversification across modules and markets reduces dependency on any one setup behaving well.
For most of the live forward test, v1 worked. It wasn't spectacular — it wasn't supposed to be. It was supposed to be smooth, boring, and to compound through periods where any individual module would have looked terrible on its own.
And it did that. For a while.
What started failing
By April, the live signal had drifted from clean compounding to deteriorating. Final published reading: -5.76% gain on the public Myfxbook. Profit factor dropped below 1. Specifically: 0.76. That's not a "rough month." That's a setup that, in this period, was matemathically losing money.
I want to be precise about the diagnosis, because "the market changed" is the lazy excuse every vendor uses. Here's what actually happened:
- Module correlation crept up. The 5 modules were originally selected to behave differently in different regimes. Over months of live trading, market regimes shifted in ways that made several modules respond similarly to the same conditions. The "diversification" was less real than the spec suggested.
- One module dragged the others. A specific module that had been a strong contributor for months entered a phase where its setups stopped working. It kept trading at full size while contributing losses. The portfolio absorbed it for a while, then couldn't.
- Risk allocation was static. v1 risked roughly the same on each module regardless of recent module performance. That's a fine starting design and a bad permanent one. By the time you can prove a module is in a slump, a more adaptive system has already reduced its weight.
- The slot count was rigid. 5 fixed modules. No upgrade path for a $500 trader vs a $5,000 trader. Same risk, same exposure, same outcome. Small accounts blew up faster than large ones during the rough patch.
That's the diagnosis. Some of it is "the market shifted in ways I didn't anticipate." Some of it is honestly "design choices in v1 weren't robust enough." I'm not going to pretend it was all bad luck.
The decision: retire v1, don't patch it
Here's a thing most vendors won't tell you: when an EA's track record deteriorates badly, patching parameters is rarely the right call.
If you change parameters and the live curve keeps falling, you've now muddied the signal — you can't tell whether the original system was broken or your patches were wrong. If you change parameters and the curve recovers, you've also created a problem — the new track record starts from the parameter change, not from inception, and the recovery might be a parameter-overfit to recent conditions.
The cleaner thing to do, if the design itself needs to change, is: retire the old version and start fresh on a new account with the new design. That's exactly what I did.
v1 is retired. The Myfxbook is public, the deterioration is documented. Anyone who bought v1 got the v2 upgrade, no charge.
Want the rebuilt version with all the v1 lessons applied?
v2 launched 3 May 2026. Public Myfxbook from day one.
→ See DoIt MultiStrategy Pro v2
What changed in v2
v2 isn't "v1 with new parameters." It's a structural rebuild. Five things changed:
1. From 5 fixed modules to 8 strategy slots
v1 shipped with 5 modules and that was that. v2 has 8 slots, and the slots themselves are configurable. Some slots are filled with existing modules; others can be filled with community presets, custom prompts, or new modules I add over time without redeploying the entire EA.
This solves the rigidity problem directly. If a slot performs poorly, it can be swapped without retiring the whole system.
2. From 1 market to 5 markets
v1 was concentrated on Forex pairs, with one occasional XAUUSD module. v2 explicitly spreads across Forex, S&P 500, Gold, and crypto exposure. Real diversification, not theoretical.
The catch: not every account size can run 5 markets at once. Which leads to point 3.
3. Tiered configuration by account size
v1 was "one config, scale by lot size." v2 has 4 explicit tiers:
- $500+: Slots 1–4, ~$10 risk per trade — entry tier
- $1k+: Slots 1–5, ~$10 risk per trade
- $2k+: Slots 1–6, ~$20 risk per trade
- $4k+: Slots 1–8, ~$20 risk per trade — full system
This is what I'd actually do if I were funding accounts at each size — not "just buy the EA and figure it out." The tiers reflect realistic margin requirements, slot correlation, and recovery time.
4. Portfolio-wide risk control, not per-module
v1 controlled risk per module. v2 has a portfolio-wide cap that overrides individual module risk if the aggregate exposure crosses a threshold. This means the system can refuse new entries when total open risk is high, even if each individual module is signaling.
This is the single biggest defense against the v1 failure mode of "all modules fire at once on correlated signals."
5. Axi Select-friendly configuration
v1 was platform-agnostic. v2 has an explicit "Axi zero setup" mode that pairs with the Axi Select capital scaling path. The combo is designed so you can run v2 on a small Axi account and progress through the program without manually retuning the EA at each tier.
If you don't use Axi, this changes nothing for you. If you do, it's a real workflow simplification. The full Axi + MSP setup map is here.
Backtest reference: what to expect (and what NOT to expect)
The v2 backtest reference, run on $4k starting capital across 8 slots:
- Net profit: $8,963
- Return: +224.1%
- Balance drawdown: -5.83%
Three things you should know about that backtest before you read it as a promise:
- It's a backtest. Live behavior is what counts. The v2 live forward is just starting (May 2026 inception). You should evaluate v2 on its forward, not on the backtest.
- The drawdown is low because the system tested well across multiple regimes in the historical data. That doesn't guarantee future regimes will be similar. v1's backtest also looked clean.
- The +224% return is over a multi-year backtest, not a year. Annualized expectations should be much lower than the headline.
If you want a system that promises 200% per year with 5% drawdown, that EA is a scam. v2 isn't promising that. v2 is promising a portfolio architecture that, in backtest, didn't exhibit the specific failure modes v1 did. The forward test will tell us if that holds.
Why I'm publishing this story instead of hiding it
Two reasons.
First, it's the right thing to do. If I hide v1, the buyers who lived through its rough patch feel abandoned. The buyers considering v2 have no way to evaluate whether I take responsibility when something doesn't work. The whole industry runs on selective disclosure, and the cost is that nobody trusts EA vendors. I'd rather be the vendor whose old failures are public than the one whose new product looks suspiciously perfect.
Second, it's a competitive advantage. When you're shopping for an EA and you read 20 product pages that all show clean curves and zero history of failure, you start to assume they're all hiding something. The vendor who walks you through their failure looks more credible than the one who claims to have never had any.
If you've been burned by EA vendors before, you already know this instinctively. You're tired of the marketing. You want to know what actually goes wrong, not just what works.
Ready to see v2 instead of just reading about it?
Public Myfxbook from day one. 8 slots, 5 markets, 4 tiers. The lessons from v1, applied.
→ See MultiStrategy Pro v2 →
Live since 3 May 2026 · Backtest reference: +224% return, -5.83% DD · Public Myfxbook
What this means for you, regardless of whether you buy v2
Even if you never buy MultiStrategy Pro, there's a takeaway worth carrying into every EA decision you make from now on:
Ask the vendor what happened to their previous version.
If they don't have one — fine, new product. Ask instead what their plan is when v1 fails, because every system eventually does.
If they do have one and it's hidden — that is information. Vendors who can't show you the failed version usually can't show you because the failed version did poorly enough that they don't want it associated with the brand. That doesn't necessarily mean the new version is bad. It does mean you have no track record of how the vendor handles failure.
Vendors who show you the failed version, walk you through what changed, and put the new version's live data on a public Myfxbook from day one — that's a different signal entirely. Whether they win or lose on the next track, you can at least see it happening.
That's the bar you should hold every EA vendor to. Including me.
FAQ
Is the v1 Myfxbook still online?
Yes. The v1 portfolio (account 11942003) is still public on Myfxbook with the deteriorated final reading (-5.76%, PF 0.76). I'm not deleting it. The v2 portfolio (account 12028594) starts from zero on 3 May 2026. Both are linked from the MultiStrategy Pro product page.
If I bought v1, do I have to pay for v2?
No. v1 buyers get the v2 upgrade, no charge. If you're a v1 buyer and you haven't received the upgrade path, send me a message via MQL5 with your purchase ID.
How long should I wait before evaluating v2?
Personally, I would not judge any EA on less than 3 months of live data, and ideally 6+. v2's live forward test starts in May 2026, so a fair evaluation would be August/September. If a vendor (including me) is pushing you to buy based on a 2-week live forward, that's a red flag.
What's the minimum account to run v2?
$500 for the entry tier (Slots 1–4). The full 8-slot system needs $4k+. Trying to run all 8 slots on a $500 account will overload the margin and you'll be stopped out on the first volatility expansion. The tier system exists for a reason.
Why not just patch v1 instead of rebuilding?
Because the v1 problems were structural, not parametric. Module correlation, static risk allocation, and rigid slot count aren't things you fix by tuning numbers — they're design constraints. Patching them would have produced a Frankenstein with a confused track record. Cleaner to start over.
Can I run v2 alongside Alpha Pulse AI?
Yes. They're complementary. Alpha Pulse AI is an LLM-decision EA focused on XAUUSD. MultiStrategy Pro is a portfolio system across 5 markets. Running both gives you AI-driven decisions on gold and rule-based portfolio diversification on the rest.
Past performance — both v1's documented deterioration and v2's backtest — does not guarantee future results. Live trading involves real capital at risk. The tier system is designed for realistic risk per account size; running above your tier increases the probability of loss. Demo first, scale slowly.
Want the next MultiStrategy Pro version updates first? The newsletter is where launches and lessons get announced before anywhere else: subscribe here.
